LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 11–13, 2011, Page 30

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

deems appropriate. Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of the voters’ assembly itself to make
decisions regarding the conduct of that congregation.
[NOTE: Questions not discussed in this opinion: The letter submitting Question 1 then continues with sub-questions A through
W. Most of these address details which a district president may include in communication regarding the scheduling of a voters’
assembly meeting, or topics which may be properly identified by him for discussion or action. As discussed above, a district
president cannot on his own convene a voters’ assembly or determine its agenda. Only at the request and concurrence of the
proper, recognized leaders of a congregation as authorized under its own governing documents may a district president facilitate
the calling of such a meeting, including the announcement of the scheduled time and the identification of the business to be
considered, including consideration of any official visit or investigation.
Some of the additional questions address interpretation of a congregation’s internal documents. Even if such governing
documents were submitted to the commission, which they were not, the commission’s role is to interpret the Synod’s own
documents and not those of an individual congregation. The additional sub-questions which the commission can address are
discussed below.]

Question 2:

Is it ever permissible for a district president to withhold district aid, help, and support, or to
in any way pressure a congregation either to close or cede control of its property/assets to
the district? If it is, is a district president’s opinion that a particular congregation is
''unhealthy'' and/or unviable an adequate reason to withhold said aid, help, and support from
a congregation?

Opinion: A district president is charged with providing ecclesiastical supervision and support for each
member congregation of his district. Such supervision is not always welcome, particularly where
dissension and factions exist in a congregation, where admonition is involved, where long-time members
of a congregation face changes in membership and economics which raise the prospect of disbanding, or
where the congregation is otherwise “unhealthy.” As the circumstances of a congregation change, some
congregations will ultimately become non-viable. Under such circumstances, a district president may be
required to exercise his responsibility by providing counsel, encouragement, and advice which urges a
congregation to merge, to become part of a multi-congregation parish, or even to disband and close. Such
efforts may be considered “pressure” on a congregation, but “pressure” by definition may very well result
from any good counsel, encouragement, advice, or admonition.
Should a congregation consider disbanding and closing, the district president may well be called upon to
advise and encourage the congregation with respect to the disposition of its assets and property. The
question submitted is unclear as to what kind of “aid, help, and support” is being referenced. If the aid,
help, and support referenced are to the conversation, relationship, encouragement, admonition, or other
aspects of ecclesiastical supervision, such aid, help, and support are to be provided by a district president
until and unless the congregation disbands. If reference is being made to financial subsidy or support, it is
the responsibility of not only the district president, but also the district board of directors or those
otherwise charged with the stewardship of the district’s resources, to determine whether or not a
congregation is healthy or viable enough to justify the use of the district’s resources for such support.
Question 3: If a congregation's leaders become frustrated with a district president, feeling as though he
has been neglectful in helping them to provide adequate LCMS pastoral ministry to the
congregation, are frustrated by what they view to be excessive district interference in the
day-to-day operation of the congregation, and feel increasingly under pressure by the district
to close the congregation and/or give control of the congregation's assets and property to the
district, the frustration building to the point that one or more congregational leaders tell the
district president that they may need to disassociate from the LCMS—is it ever appropriate
for the district president to respond to these complaints by stating something like, “People
224